i think it should absolutely be an option for any right thinking person who wants it, but it should be a long and tedious process to weed out treatable mental illness (assuming treatments work) and allow people to change their minds
like a couple of years and if you're still steadfast and rational then f*ck it, give people the help to do it in a controlled calm kind manner that isn't a random violent crapshoot that leaves them to be discovered by traumatised neighbours

On Friday 5/11/18 - 12:31:16 PM WigglesFT wrote:2 years also seems like a long time. I'm not sure if someone who desperately wanted it would be willing to wait that long. I totally get why you would want a 2 year period though.

that's the whole point
desperate wanting is the exact thing that shouldn't be allowed, because that can change
steadfast over the years desire is different

My big problem is the same than with death penalty: you’re not allowed to make mistakes. Since mistakes were already made* in such a short time, I’m gonna go with NO.

* in Belgium two people were allowed to be euthanized that were in their 20s. One was suffering from depression and the other one had a heavy case of PTSD after years of physical and sexual abuse. The PTSD one changed her mind, but still, the State okayed it.

On Friday 5/11/18 - 3:39:56 PM Abzurd wrote:My big problem is the same than with death penalty: you’re not allowed to make mistakes. Since mistakes were already made* in such a short time, I’m gonna go with NO. * in Belgium two people were allowed to be euthanized that were in their 20s. One was suffering from depression and the other one had a heavy case of PTSD after years of physical and sexual abuse. The PTSD one changed her mind, but still, the State okayed it.

Well I think the point was that the state approved a case where the person ultimately changed their mind, therefore the state is not necessarily trustworthy in determining which cases should be allowed.
(I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it was the point)

On Friday 5/11/18 - 4:41:45 PM CuckingFunt wrote:The state should have no say in whether or not you're allowed to kill yourself.

I mean ultimately they don't. They just have a say in whether or not it should be considered a crime for someone (a medical professional) to help you do it. Which means the methods available to you are inherently more violent, more traumatic for your family, and the whole thing is just overall more stigmatized than it maybe should be.

On Friday 5/11/18 - 9:11:42 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:personally, i'd be for it only if there was no chance of recovery. but assisted suicide is something that is between a patient and their doctor, and each situation will be different.

People can't even decide on that when it's clear from all medical advice that there is no recovery and someone will never survive without life support. Just look at stuff like the baby Alfie case recently. Those parents refused to listen to medical professionals who all agreed the child had such severe brain damage that he'd never swallow on his own.

On Friday 5/11/18 - 5:10:58 PM birdsong4j wrote:Well I think the point was that the state approved a case where the person ultimately changed their mind, therefore the state is not necessarily trustworthy in determining which cases should be allowed. (I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it was the point)

The fact that she changed her mind was only FYI. Not relevant to the point I want to make: you can't allow assisted suicide with people suffering from a disease that makes them suicidal. It's the opposite of medecine.